Seriously, why would anyone consider anything else than Rigol?

[nctnico]

The ASIC and the resultant performance and ease of use is a technology based argument and arguably the main attraction of the Keysight oscilloscopes. I have little doubt it's the reason Dave still prefers a Keysight as his daily driver. The ASIC oscilloscopes are honestly just a joy to use.

But Dave uses it as an analog scope replacement. For that purpose the low end Keysight scopes are fine (as 2N3055 already noted). But for decoding and advanced use not so much. The UI alone is just too tedious.

[tautech]

The ASIC and the resultant performance and ease of use is a technology based argument and arguably the main attraction of the Keysight oscilloscopes. I have little doubt it's the reason Dave still prefers a Keysight as his daily driver. The ASIC oscilloscopes are honestly just a joy to use.

Only because Mr Jones has still to get his head around the power of deep memory DSO usage. 
Instead of 'crippling' it's a extremely powerful feature.

[2N3055]

Specs say the DSOX1204A has 1Gsa/s sample rate when all 4 channels active; GDS-2074E appears to be 2Gsa/s across all channels, so 500Msa/s when all 4 channels in use.

Also, the latest DSOX firmware enables 500 segments (see https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-keysight-dsox1200x-and-edux1052-scopes-with-extended-capabilities/msg2951870/#msg2951870).

Thank you for that information. That IS much better and more useful..

And no not some random differences to GW Instek.  GW Instek is literally better designed scope from ground up, having much more capabilities, search, measurements, statistics with histograms.
GW Instek is really bad at marketing, you need to download user manual to actually see all the stuff you can do... If it weren't for lower bandwidth and sampling rate and less protocols (not problem mostly all important are there for general purpose work) it would give MSOX 3000A run for it's money, as far as math, measurements, and analytical features.. MSOX3000T doesn't have histograms, for instance...
DSOX1204 is severely limited compared to it.

But hey, like I said before, I'm not trying to convince you anything. Just making facts straight. It was obvious from the start you're going to buy Keysight.. It's your choice. It's a very nice, very good analog replacement scope. It's not bad choice, just not best buy, capability wise. I guess brand name does have value after all.

[0culus]

The ASIC and the resultant performance and ease of use is a technology based argument and arguably the main attraction of the Keysight oscilloscopes. I have little doubt it's the reason Dave still prefers a Keysight as his daily driver. The ASIC oscilloscopes are honestly just a joy to use.

Totally agreed. I get to use a (much more expensive) MSO-X 6000 series scope at work and it is truly awesome how immediate it feels. If they could combine that with deep memory...I think there would be no reason to buy anything else (if you have the budget for a 30-40k scope of course).

[tkamiya]

Just got a half working (with problems) DSO5034A for $60.  I know input amplifiers are good.  Can't wait to get inside of it and get it ready for cal! 

It would be interesting to compare it to my Siglent.  $9000 (old) scope vs $350 scope (new).  WHO WINS?

I also have a older Rigol I bought for $20 with no display.  Backlight connection was out.  Easy fix!  Nice to have a small & light scope I can throw around.

[MichalPL]

OK, so now the contestants are:

Rigol DS1202Z-E for $469 (where I live)
GW Instek GDS-2202E for $1105
Keysight DSOX1202A for $900

[Gandalf_Sr]

OK, so now the contestants are:

Rigol DS1202Z-E for $469 (where I live)
GW Instek GDS-2202E for $1105
Keysight DSOX1202A for $900

Maybe you've already commented but why not a Rigol MSO5074 which is $939 from Tequipment.net after the eevBlog 6% discount?

[MichalPL]

$1130 at my place. No idea, you tell me

[EEVblog]

The ASIC and the resultant performance and ease of use is a technology based argument and arguably the main attraction of the Keysight oscilloscopes. I have little doubt it's the reason Dave still prefers a Keysight as his daily driver. The ASIC oscilloscopes are honestly just a joy to use.

Yes, it "just works", and everything is just stupidly fast and responsive. All other scopes feel a bit "finicky" in comparison.
And remarkably the Megazoom IV ASIC will be 10 years old Next Feb!

[H.O]

$1130 at my place. No idea, you tell me

Don't forget that the $939 price from Tequipment would be without whatever tax you'd pay when importing it into Poland from outside of the EU (25% here in Sweden).
If I were to buy the Rigol MSO5074 from Tequipment it would cost €885 - 6% + 25% tax = €1040 plus some €10 or whatever in import charges. It's not clear if they offer free international shipping.
At Batronix it's €1042 incl 16% tax and shipping. Perhaps you can get some discount on that as well. Not much difference, right?

The price from your secret place of $1130 is around €1000 so if that includes tax and shipping I'd say it's certainly on par with the others.

[jaromir]

Just to add another option: I bought my 5074 locally from here https://rlx.sk/en/4ch-oscilloscopes/6861-mso5074-rigol-4x70-mhz-8gsas-200mpts-500000-wfmss-la-16opt.html
This is well above limit for free shipping within Slovakia, not sure about Poland, but you may ask.

[Mr. Scram]

Only because Mr Jones has still to get his head around the power of deep memory DSO usage. 
Instead of 'crippling' it's a extremely powerful feature.

Give it a rest.  Other than a few fanboys of other brands and in your case a seller of competing equipment shiling his own brand I haven't seen many people complain about memory depth in the real world. Having more memory doesn't hurt but we know available memory is the trade off with the current generation ASIC. The real world implications tend to be massively overstated by a few usual suspects.

[Mr. Scram]

But Dave uses it as an analog scope replacement. For that purpose the low end Keysight scopes are fine (as 2N3055 already noted). But for decoding and advanced use not so much. The UI alone is just too tedious.

See the message from Dave. The UI is anything but tedious as that's a major selling point. Speculating about how Dave uses his oscilloscopes seems a bit inappropriate.

[nctnico]

But Dave uses it as an analog scope replacement. For that purpose the low end Keysight scopes are fine (as 2N3055 already noted). But for decoding and advanced use not so much. The UI alone is just too tedious.

See the message from Dave. The UI is anything but tedious as that's a major selling point. Speculating about how Dave uses his oscilloscopes seems a bit inappropriate.

Have you ever used a Keysight scope to do decoding (for example)? I have and the process of setting it up is super tedious compared to GW Instek. This is not speculation but hands-on experience. The secret of the GW Instek is that is has a horizontal and vertical row of buttons next to the screen and a seperate select button instead of a combined rotary/push button. That makes a world of difference in ease of use.

[SilverSolder]

But Dave uses it as an analog scope replacement. For that purpose the low end Keysight scopes are fine (as 2N3055 already noted). But for decoding and advanced use not so much. The UI alone is just too tedious.

See the message from Dave. The UI is anything but tedious as that's a major selling point. Speculating about how Dave uses his oscilloscopes seems a bit inappropriate.

Have you ever used a Keysight scope to do decoding (for example)? I have and the process of setting it up is super tedious compared to GW Instek. This is not speculation but hands-on experience. The secret of the GW Instek is that is has a horizontal and vertical row of buttons next to the screen and a seperate select button instead of a combined rotary/push button. That makes a world of difference in ease of use.

A PC is optimized to input and display information, with keyboard, mouse, large screen.  Can't help thinking that there might be something to the idea of a USB scope...   but I've never looked into them and I don't know if they are even comparable to a "regular" scope in performance.

[2N3055]

Only because Mr Jones has still to get his head around the power of deep memory DSO usage. 
Instead of 'crippling' it's a extremely powerful feature.

Give it a rest.  Other than a few fanboys of other brands and in your case a seller of competing equipment shiling his own brand I haven't seen many people complain about memory depth in the real world. Having more memory doesn't hurt but we know available memory is the trade off with the current generation ASIC. The real world implications tend to be massively overstated by a few usual suspects.

Sory but you're wrong. It depends of what you're doing. For design and reverse engineering it is neded all the time. Also for verification and test, it might be needed some longer sequence, but with sufficient  timing resolution..

[2N3055]

But Dave uses it as an analog scope replacement. For that purpose the low end Keysight scopes are fine (as 2N3055 already noted). But for decoding and advanced use not so much. The UI alone is just too tedious.

See the message from Dave. The UI is anything but tedious as that's a major selling point. Speculating about how Dave uses his oscilloscopes seems a bit inappropriate.

Have you ever used a Keysight scope to do decoding (for example)? I have and the process of setting it up is super tedious compared to GW Instek. This is not speculation but hands-on experience. The secret of the GW Instek is that is has a horizontal and vertical row of buttons next to the screen and a seperate select button instead of a combined rotary/push button. That makes a world of difference in ease of use.

A PC is optimized to input and display information, with keyboard, mouse, large screen.  Can't help thinking that there might be something to the idea of a USB scope...   but I've never looked into them and I don't know if they are even comparable to a "regular" scope in performance.

Define performance..

[Mr. Scram]

Have you ever used a Keysight scope to do decoding (for example)? I have and the process of setting it up is super tedious compared to GW Instek. This is not speculation but hands-on experience. The secret of the GW Instek is that is has a horizontal and vertical row of buttons next to the screen and a seperate select button instead of a combined rotary/push button. That makes a world of difference in ease of use.

Considering your history of endlessly pushing the GW-Instek brand I'm hesitant to take any comparisons of it to any other brand at face value. I've never had much trouble with decoding on the Keysight oscilloscopes I used but I'm hardly a benchmark.

[SilverSolder]

But Dave uses it as an analog scope replacement. For that purpose the low end Keysight scopes are fine (as 2N3055 already noted). But for decoding and advanced use not so much. The UI alone is just too tedious.

See the message from Dave. The UI is anything but tedious as that's a major selling point. Speculating about how Dave uses his oscilloscopes seems a bit inappropriate.

Have you ever used a Keysight scope to do decoding (for example)? I have and the process of setting it up is super tedious compared to GW Instek. This is not speculation but hands-on experience. The secret of the GW Instek is that is has a horizontal and vertical row of buttons next to the screen and a seperate select button instead of a combined rotary/push button. That makes a world of difference in ease of use.

A PC is optimized to input and display information, with keyboard, mouse, large screen.  Can't help thinking that there might be something to the idea of a USB scope...   but I've never looked into them and I don't know if they are even comparable to a "regular" scope in performance.

Define performance..

Can a USB scope do the job of something like a Keysight MSOX3104T?

Is a USB scope fast/responsive, or are you sitting and waiting on screen updates?

[Mr. Scram]

Sory but you're wrong. It depends of what you're doing. For design and reverse engineering it is neded all the time. Also for verification and test, it might be needed some longer sequence, but with sufficient  timing resolution..

Considering the Keysights are somewhat more popular amongst the professional crowd and the lack of posts about how these oscilloscopes are not suitable for this intended purpose it just doesn't seem to be a major issue. You'd think it'd be discussed more when someone can't do the job with their tool and wants to get on with it to pay the bills.. What I am seeing is a few people relentlessly push "their" favoured brand, massively exaggerating the pros of their choice and cons of any competitors for financial gain or reasons unknown. I've commented before how unfair this is to newcomers who may not be aware of these large amounts of noise and skewed information and subsequently may be steered in a direction not serving their best interest, but the goals of these noisy individuals.

[2N3055]

Sory but you're wrong. It depends of what you're doing. For design and reverse engineering it is neded all the time. Also for verification and test, it might be needed some longer sequence, but with sufficient  timing resolution..

Considering the Keysights are somewhat more popular amongst the professional crowd and the lack of posts about how these oscilloscopes are not suitable for this intended purpose it just doesn't seem to be a major issue. You'd think it'd be discussed more when someone can't do the job with their tool and wants to get on with it to pay the bills.. What I am seeing is a few people relentlessly push "their" favoured brand, massively exaggerating the pros of their choice and cons of any competitors for financial gain or reasons unknown. I've commented before how unfair this is to newcomers who may not be aware of these large amounts of noise and skewed information and subsequently may be steered in a direction not serving their best interest, but the goals of these noisy individuals.

I understant where your'e coming from, but..
Pro crowd rarely have one scope, way more pro audience use LeCroy than you would think.. All advanced Keysight scopes are deep memory ones..   3000/4000/6000 series are excellent service and diagnostic interactive scopes...
I have 3000T but also 2 Picos, one with 500 MS memory. And quite often I have both on and use them interchangeably..

[nctnico]

Sory but you're wrong. It depends of what you're doing. For design and reverse engineering it is neded all the time. Also for verification and test, it might be needed some longer sequence, but with sufficient  timing resolution..

Considering the Keysights are somewhat more popular amongst the professional crowd and the lack of posts about how these oscilloscopes are not suitable for this intended purpose it just doesn't seem to be a major issue. You'd think it'd be discussed more when someone can't do the job with their tool and wants to get on with it to pay the bills..

From what I'm seeing the 'professional crowd' is mostly just making do with whatever is on their desk without even questioning whether there is a tool out there more suitable c.q. more efficient for the job at hand. And what does it matter if the pay check comes in every month anyway?

The biggest difference between oscilloscopes is actually what isn't in the datasheet. Currently I own 4 different oscilloscopes each with their unique pros & cons and thus different usage cases.

[Mr. Scram]

From what I'm seeing the 'professional crowd' is mostly just making do with whatever is on their desk without even questioning whether there is a tool out there more suitable c.q. more efficient for the job at hand. And what does it matter if the pay check comes in every month anyway?

The biggest difference between oscilloscopes is actually what isn't in the datasheet. Currently I own 4 different oscilloscopes each with their unique pros & cons and thus different usage cases.

Competent professionals are quite sensitive to how efficiently they can get the job done. Time is money and delays because you're dicking with your tools is expensive. That's why most professional tools are rather uneventful affairs which get the job done without too much fuss.

I agree not everything is in the datasheet. Ease of use age liveability are factors, which is why Dave's remark is interesting.

[chegueva01]

Not having enough money might be a reason to , imaging needing to buy lots of tools to start your electronics journey. you'll need to start with some not so heavy tools then upgrade when the time is right.

[0culus]

But Dave uses it as an analog scope replacement. For that purpose the low end Keysight scopes are fine (as 2N3055 already noted). But for decoding and advanced use not so much. The UI alone is just too tedious.

See the message from Dave. The UI is anything but tedious as that's a major selling point. Speculating about how Dave uses his oscilloscopes seems a bit inappropriate.

Have you ever used a Keysight scope to do decoding (for example)? I have and the process of setting it up is super tedious compared to GW Instek. This is not speculation but hands-on experience. The secret of the GW Instek is that is has a horizontal and vertical row of buttons next to the screen and a seperate select button instead of a combined rotary/push button. That makes a world of difference in ease of use.

I have. It works fine and is not tedious to set up. Speaking as someone who strongly prefers analog scopes anyway in hobby land, the rotary push knob thing that Keysight uses is actually a damn sight better than doubling the number of softkeys.

I was most recently using the aforementioned scope for sniffing around a CAN bus, and it does an excellent job. I told the scope what CAN frame ID I wanted to trigger on and it grabbed it no worries.